The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. The Secret $1,000,000 Prize

by Deputy Dog 72 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  hooberus

  hooberus
  
  
  

  Any insights on the process of abiogodesis yet?

  Abaddon seems to be saying that before Bibilcal creationists can criticize abiogenesis (a suposedly scientific theory that should be subject to scientific scrutiny on its own merits) that creationists should be required to first come up with an alternate theory for something that we don't even believe in (that is "abiogogesis").

  Or do you use special pleading to avoid responding to a request for your theory of how god arrose?

  
  Since I don't believe that "god arrose" I have no "theory" on it.

  You could always use a quote from a website that confuses people with bad science and make them think Creationism is credible, all the while running a nice profit to swell the pockets of its Executive Officers with twice the salary of a comparable charitable institution. Or make excuses why you haven't refuted falsifications of Biblical chronolgy that show the Flood or Creation could not be literal accounts. Or blame wicked godless scientists for a cover-up?
  
  
  Consider my breath baited...

  
  
  Re: dialogue on these issues with Abaddon:
  As he was previously told I intend to discontinue all further discussions with him regarding his accusations against myself and the sources I use as several more than sufficient responses have been given and I see no need to take any more time.
  For previous dialogues interested readers are encouraged to read the following dialogues as well as the numerous referenced links:
  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/106111/3.ashx
• 

  slacker911

  Elderwho

  Man, you should be embarrassed and ashamed of yourself. I have debated creationists for about five years. Having been one myself at one point, I am used to the typical string of incorrect and generally poor responses, partly because I used to give them myself. But the way you conduct yourself in the defense of your beliefs is downright childish and you are a discredit to your faith, as baseless as it may be.

  Abaddon,

  Nice to see read your posts as always. Dont worry, people are benefiting from your patience and diligence.

  Hooberus,

  Would you like to provide us with a copy of your statistical analysis that allowed you to come to that determination? Please, no links to junk sites...

  Spectrum,

  You ask a good question. The first answer that jumped out to me as to why evolutionists dont consider the lungfish to be a holy grail of sorts is because they dont need one. Additionally, there are better examples out there. Let me ask you this, though it might seem like the answer is obvious. Why do you think that it should be such a big deal?
• 

  Spectrum

  Abaddon,
  
  I didn't totally understand your last post.
  
  My thinking is, if you have a fish that has lungs and walks on land then surely this is direct evidence fish had the capability to evolve lungs and change the use of their fins. Isn't this is more important than:
  
  "because they know that modern terapods are not direct descendents of extant species of lungfish"
  
  Isn't this Holy Grailish enough. Evolutionist say fish came out of the sea and here you have living proof of a fish that has lungs and can walk on land.
  
  Hang on a sec, does it have real lungs or do its gills have the capability of absorbing oxygen from the atmosphere?
• 

  hooberus

  Well on the one hand: the mathematical and chemical hurdles of the very first steps can be met with the right set of environmental conditions. Its plausible that other worlds may have settings that are more condusive to such early stages. Amino acids have been detected deep within meteorites for example. Assembly of protein or nucleic acid chains can be done with straightforward condensation reactions. Catalytic RNAs/ribozymes demonstrate how one molecule can act as both self replicating code and enzyme, thereby eliminating the chicken and egg dilemma of which came first the code or the enzyme that replicates it. Thats a significant start.
  

  On the other hand: I have to agree with you that we're still in the dark on several very crucial steps. Going from the RNA world to the DNA world means a slew of other necessary enzymes and the genetic code for them. Then there's the matter of how metabolic pathways became established (along with the archived code for it) . But we at least have some tantalizing indicators and leads that can bring us closer to some answers. The missing pieces to the puzzle may be out there. Or not. I simply think all this extra bit of information means that this is still an option worthy of consideration and so one doesn't have to automatically cry out "creator god" by default.

  
  

  
  Midget, I'll post the following for those genuinely interested. You will also find a critique of the RNA hypothesis by Dean Kenyon a former prominent evolutionary origin of life biologist (and author of Biochemical Predestination)

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp

  Below is a critique of some of the problems of the frequently cited talkorigins abiogenesis arcticle.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1566935/post.ashx#1566935

  I would also like to once again state that there are numerous ways of defining evolution and that some evolutionists themselves (even prominent ones) have included the origin of life in evolution. For some additional references: http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe07orlf.html#orgnlfvltnhsnxplntn

  Also it is clearly included by Mayr in a paragraph in "What Evolution Is" (ironically also excluded in the same book's glossary). See also the definition by Kerkut. And of course even dedicated evolution books also frequently start with it with no demarcation between it and other evolutionary subjects.

  This is not intended to argue that it must always be included in the various definitions. However, the above are sufficient to refute the claim often made in these discussions by many evolutionists that it must always be excluded.

  Most importantly is should be acknowledged by everyone that the "origin of life" certainly is an important part of the "evolutionary" version of history- and it is history that the creation/ evolution debate is really about.

  Finally, I would like to say that due to important personal factors and time constraints that I will be discontinuing discussions on the JWD forum as relating to origins science subjects.

  hooberus
• 

  Spectrum

  Slack,
  
  "Why do you think that it should be such a big deal?"
  
  Because the debate still rages. Evolution is still in big parts a theory. A fish with lungs and fins being used to walk on land shows a clear transition. At face value this fish exemplifies the concept of evolution more so than amphibians do.
  
  You might be convinced and dismiss creation as a myth but it's not that simple for me I need more proof especially that evolution is self-progessing/sustaining like a star doesn't need stoking by a big hand.
• 

  Abaddon

  hooberus
  

  Abaddon seems;

  
  

  
  There isn't a "seems" as I have been quite specific earlier on in the thread. Rather than take my explicate statements you put words into my mouth. How honest. How credible.

  As you chose not to use my own words so as to better pursue your agenda, I'll quote them again for you. I said;

  I'll listen to those worshipping their literal interpretation of accounts written by Bronze Age pastoralists (that modern science falsifies) chuntering on about abiogenesis with considerably more interest after they present a theory of abiogodesis that doesn't involve unprovable assertions (god is outside this Universe and the laws don't apply/god has always been here and had no beginning).

  See? It's nothing to do with a right to criticise, it's to do with me having little interest in listening to criticisms when those making them have exactly the same fault in their theories.

  Since I don't believe that "god arrose" I have no "theory" on it.

  Yes, well, if you were actually responding to what I wrote rather than a straw man, you'd have noted I already covered this instance of special pleading by Creationists. Saying 'I don't believe that "god arose"' is no more a sound theory than a kid saying 'adults can't see fairies'; it's just special pleading to avoid a fatal flaw in a belief structure, with no proof that such special pleading is true.

  Re: dialogue on these issues with Abaddon:

  As he was previously told I intend to discontinue all further discussions with him regarding his accusations against myself and the sources I use as several more than sufficient responses have been given and I see no need to take any more time.

  For previous dialogues interested readers are encouraged to read the following dialogues as well as the numerous referenced links:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/106111/3.ashx

  Now here hooberus is replying upon people being too lazy to follow the link or do the research themselves; another typical characteristic of many Creationist supporters he plays too as well as suffers from.

  If one takes the trouble to follow the link we see I answered hooberus even in the thread he quotes. Does hooberus mention it? No. Is this honest or credible? Does he omit inconvenient facts often? Yes, in this very thread as well as the one he quotes. For example, from the above link he quoted we find hooberus responding to me posting evidence of AiG's dodgy status;

  Interested readers should read the arcticle carefully. Furthermore, it should be noted that AiG was given a 3 star rating (out of 4 possible) by Charity Navigator- thus hardly a "scheme."

  I reply in the very same thread;

  hooberus, the Wiki points out that the salary of executives is NOT included in the star rating system, thus Ken Ham paying himself TWICE the rate of a non-profit CEO CANNOT reduce the star rating AiG receives.

  You knew this, it was in the article, yet you don't mention it in defending AiG. This is deceptive, but play in the mud (AiG) and you get dirty I suppose...

  Note the pattern; straw-man arguments, claiming he's responded to accusations when his very responses omit mention of some of the most pertinent problems with AiG, even when these problems are clearly bought out in the text he is responding to.

  Whenever I repeat the accusations regarding hooberus behaviour and choice of references he posts a link saying 'oh, this was dealt with here", or words to that effect... when that is just totally dishonest as there are still questions regarding his behaviour or choice of references he has failed to respond to properly - for all his claims he has.

  But keep it up hooberus, the behaviour of Creationists in general is very nicely displayed by the way you act in these threads, it is instructive.

  Spectrum

  I'll get you a more detailed response re. lungfish, but slaker911 is on the right drift.

  Because the debate still rages.

  This is a misconception. A small minority whose science is so poor it can;t get published might think there is a raging debate, but there simply isn't. Please, by all means, provide a definition of WHAT 'a raging debate' is (what % have to doubt conventional wisdom before it is a raging debate), and then prove this % of scientists DO doubt conventional wisdom. Until then you're just repeating Creationist claims that are unfounded, no matter how they try to dress it up. Unless you can support your assertion there is some massive debate going on, you're basing your reaction on false information.

  Evolution is still in big parts a theory.

  Please define theory in your own words. I am taking it on trust you are sincere, unlike some people. If this is the case part of your problem may be you're not clear on what a theory is, and the difference between the theory of evolution and the evidence for evolution.

  You might be convinced and dismiss creation as a myth but it's not that simple for me I need more proof especially that evolution is self-progessing/sustaining like a star doesn't need stoking by a big hand.

  Why the double standard Spectrum? You don't have any proof (in the sense I think you mean) for the alternative theory, yet you demand 'proof' of evolution. Don't get me wrong, there is LOTS of proof for much of evolution. For example, the cladistic (bone based) 'family trees' of genuses and species were created BEFORE genetics and have normally been confirmed by genetics, a good indication that evolution is fundamentally the right idea, as if the theory were really out then there would have been little or no match between the cladistic trees and the genetic trees.

  I am curious how, despite the emptiness of 'arguments' bought to this thread by Creationists et. al., you keep on believing their claims, rather than deciding to do some study and making your own mind up. You do seem to have a genuine interest in knowledge, so this is curious.
• 

  Abaddon

  Spectrum
  

  
  Yeah, I'm right.
  

  Lungfish are dipnomorpha, not tetrapomorpha. They have distinct lungs, not highly adapted gills or 'labyrinth organs' like the Osphronemidae. They were once thought to be ancestors of amphibians, but now it is felt they have a common ancestor they share with amphibians.

  Either way they are not a 'missing link' to modern mammals as they are not tetrapomorpha.

  So evolutionists don't make a fuss about them as a/ they are not a missing link, b/ 'missing links' are tedious and inaccurate ideas nowadays largely coming from simplistic journalism or Creationist criticisms. In an ideal world people would learn about 'ring species' before claiming anything about 'missing links', as an understanding of one is essential to appreciate the tenuous status of the other, c/ unlike your misconception, there is no big debate going on and they can't be bothered making hysterical inaccurate claims to attract media attention as evolution doesn't need hysterical inaccurate claims to make people think it is credible; unlike Creationism.

  Did your parents (assuming they were JW) severely restrict your access to books or TV programmes, or participation in science lessons? I ask as I know Evolution wasn't taught decently in American schools until the 1980's after some Court victories. It's not surprising therefore that the USA is a preserve for those who still believe in a literal creative account or a partially literal creative account; they were denied accurate knowledge in their formative years. The UK was a lot better, but your background may have denied you access to the very information that would make you realise how uncredible Creationism is.
• 

  slacker911

  Spectrum

  Thanks for the reply...

  You know, in your post you really hit on one of the biggest parts of what makes evolution/creation seem like the big controversy that it isnt. And I cant blame you for it, I used to say the same thing. "Evolution is still in big parts a theory." How right you are, and actually, evolution is exclusively a theory. The reason though that that is a big deal to creationists and not a big deal to scientists is not stupidity on either side or something like that. It is a difference on how one side defines the word as opposed to another. In normal conversation, most people, and occasionally myself, will use the word "theory" synanamously with the word "hunch". In other words, a "theory" coversationally may mean a really good guess, which doesnt neccesarily have the backing of facts. However, scientifically a "theory" is something else entirely. A scientific "theory" is defined as a "set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." So what evolution is, and really what every scientific theory is, is something that looks at observable facts and then attempts to explain them, and then also make predictions based on the observations. That is why every scientific theory changes. So you establish the facts and then come up with an explanation for those facts. It actually isnt half as complicated as most people make it out to be. And as new facts emerge you will see, and should expect to see, changes to a theory. This is not a bad thing though. Scientific theories function properly when they are allowed to adapt to new information. Structured rigidity confined by preexisting belief is the last thing you would want in anything, let alone a scientific field that is going to make predictions that will affect medicine, computers, new technologies, and a host of other things that most people would never relate to biological evolution.

  Here is a thought for you that may make it easier for you to see how scientific theories work, and why change is not a bad thing and should be expected and embraced. Einstein came out with his Theory of Special Relativity in 1905. He then expanded on this theory and came out with the Theory of General Relativity in 1915. The need for relativity theory arose to explain the problem that was discovered with an older theory that was proven to be completely wrong and baseless. This was the belief that there was a medium that filled the universe known as ether. And the discovery that ether was such a problem was a real victory for the scientific method, which is the method that has shaped the modern day theory of biological evolution. The theory of relativity arose to as an explanation to the problem with "frames of reference" that was created by Newton's Laws of Motion. Basically, people knew you couldnt go faster then light. But according to Newtons laws people would experience moments when light for them was faster then light itself, and so a theory had to arise to explain this. An example of the problem would be, lets say you are on a train and you shine a flashlight to the front of your car, and someone on the ground sees it as you roll by. For you, the light proceeds out of your flashlight at the speed of light, but for the person on the ground it proceeds out at the speed of light plus the speed of the train along the ground. That was a big problem that ether was created to explain away. But the proof that there was no ether was a huge problem for physics, so a theory arose to (1) take a look at the observable facts, (2) state a way of explaining the facts, (3) survive repeated testing, and (4) make repeated predictions. The theory of Special Relativity did all of these things, and did them correctly. It also changed to encompass additional facts, and became the theory of General Relativity 10 years later. This did not make the original theory invalid, but instead allowed it to grow. And the success of that theory, or theories, can be seen in the fact that it made predictions successfully. Predictions like the fact that time slows down when you approah the speed of light. This has been directly observed, repeatedly. And I am getting off track here, but also in the realm of particle physics, and there are scores of others. Relativity Theory proved its worth by being able to explain those facts, change, and make these predictions.

  The Theory of Biological Evolution has done the same types of things. All bio evolution has done is look at what is observable and then make a prediction based on those observations, it has nothing to do with God or religion. You can see a clear observable lineage through out the fossil record tying now very diverse animals together. Look at the skeleton of a whale for proof of that. Look at a human skeleton along side any ape, or extinct hominid and you can see that. It is true for virtually all land and see vertibrates. You can also see through out the Earth the way animals diverge from their relatives when they are isolated, that is what Darwin noticed on the Galapagos Islands. Look at populations of animals that have experienced isolation from their related species. Look at monkeys in South America as opposed to apes in Africa. Look at Australia and Tasmania. Look at the species in Madagascar as opposed to their relatives on mainland Africa. Look anywhere you want. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain these things, and it has survived test after test after test. And again, it has nothing to do with God or religion. The seeming problem/conflict arises though in that the theory of biological evolution does conflict with a literal intepretation of the book of Genesis. But atheism is not a prerequisite for belief in evolution by any means. It is just incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Genesis account. But absolutely do not take my word for it. Do some real research for yourself. If you are really interested get a book on evolution, I am sure you already have one on creation, as do I.

  Evolution has also made leagues of predictions that have been used to improve our lives. One of the best ones out there Abaddon already pointed out. Looking at the fossil record allowed scientists to make predictions regarding genetics that were found to be correct. That is huge! If there was not shared ancestry, there could be no accurate prediction about the genes that would be shared. Another big one would be that an examination of the fossil record would lead to predictions that we would find specific transitional species like the one that was announced about a month ago. Scientists unearthed a clear transistional fossil that showed an animal adapting to live on land permanently. They had the prediction spot on, thanks to the theory of biological evolution. They had it down to the shaping of the limbs and the direction they pointed. That is just another of the reasons that we know that the theory of biological evolution is the best explanation out there that explains the facts that have been established. And the simple fact that evolution can survive, and be refined by change is what shows it to be a robust and vibrant theory and explanation for the diversification of species. But again, it has nothing to do with God.

  So regarding your question about the lungfish being the holy grail of evolution, it probably doesnt get any special attention because it is one of so many. If you look around and take an objective look at pretty much any animal out there you will see that they are all in one way or another transitional, including ourselves, as offensive to some as that may seem...

  I know that one thing I found myself doing when I was debating evolution/creation was stumbling over my own preexisting beliefs. I knew that to really get to the truth of the matter I had to ask myself, on everything that I read and learned, one simple question. If I had never heard of evolution or creation, which one would I believe if I was getting all of this for the first time? That is when it really dawned on me that I was trying to convince myself that creation was right. I invite you to answer this question. If you had never heard of creation of evolution, and just started wandering through a science museum looking at all of this yourself, all the skeletons, models, mockups and everything else, and there were no signs or any explanation for what you were looking at besides basic names and a detail of features, and then you had two people approach you when your slate was clean, and one presented creation and what they felt its proof was, and another presented evolution and what they felt its proof was, which one would you believe? When I was finally honest with myself I came to realize that biological evolution was the best explanation.

  I hope this answers your question.
• 

  ellderwho

  Man, you should be embarrassed and ashamed of yourself. I have debated creationists for about five years. Having been one myself at one point, I am used to the typical string of incorrect and generally poor responses, partly because I used to give them myself.

  Where in this thread did I even attempt to defend my position? Hey genius get this clue, its what I tell people in cults, " its not about what I believe, your the one selling the goods." This is your problem along with Abadons' I dont have to show anyrthing. Its not about me or my beliefs. Read the friggin title of the thread that has become the pink elephant. Stick around long enough and you'll see how the onus is a slippery fish that the evolutionist is well versed in.

  But the way you conduct yourself in the defense of your beliefs is downright childish and you are a discredit to your faith, as baseless as it may be.

  Yeah, the love fest continues, keep followin your boy around, he'll continue to make feeble attepts at keeping everyone in line who dares question the sacred theory of evolution. Especially making dogmatic claims about the scientific community. Basically these defenses are but a pimple on the butt of evoulution. The real heavy discussion are about real problems. Which some posters feel do not exist. Which in itself speaks volumes. Remember, Im just a guy asking questions.
• 

  Abaddon

  ellederwho

  LOL, keep it up. You say 'I don't have to prove anything', yet seem woefully ignorant of how much you prove with every post on this subject.

  Pretty much everyone on this thread can see that, but of course, despite the fact you've not done anything other than advance criticisms it is painfully obvious you don't even understand the refutation of, you're still convinced you're right.

  And I thought hooberus was a tough act to follow...